Article
Reference
Recent advances in deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders
CLAIR, Anne-Hélène, HAYNES, William, MALLET, Luc
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been offered to patients suffering of severe and resistant neuropsychiatric disorders like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome (TS) and Major Depression (MDD). Modulation of several targets within the cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuits can lead to a decrease of symptom severity in those patients. This review focuses on the recent clinical outcomes in DBS in psychiatric disorders.
Studies on OCD and TS are now focusing on the long-term effects of DBS, with encouraging results regarding not only the decrease of symptoms, but also quality of life. They also highlighted efficient adjuvant techniques, like cognitive and behavioural therapy and support programs, to enhance an often-partial response to DBS. The application of DBS for MDD is more recent and, despite encouraging initial open-label studies, two large randomised studies have failed to demonstrate an efficacy of DBS in MDD according to evidence-based medicine criteria. Last years, DBS was also tested in other resistant psychiatric disorders, as anorexia nervosa and addiction, with encouraging [...]
CLAIR, Anne-Hélène, HAYNES, William, MALLET, Luc. Recent advances in deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders. F1000Research , 2018, vol. 7, no. 699
DOI : 10.12688/f1000research.14187.1 PMID : 29904585
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:125284
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
Open Peer Review
F1000 Faculty Reviews are commissioned from members of the prestigious F1000 Faculty. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, peer review takes place before publication; the reviewers are listed below, but their reports are not formally published.
Any comments on the article can be found at the end of the article.
REVIEW
Recent advances in deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
Anne-Hélène Clair , William Haynes , Luc Mallet 1,3
Sorbonne University, UPMC Paris 06 University, INSERM, CNRS, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, Paris, France Neurosurgery department, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
Psychiatry and Addictology Department – Neurosurgery Department, Personalized Neurology & Psychiatry University Department, University Hospitals Henri Mondor – Albert Chenevier, Créteil, France
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been offered to patients suffering of severe and resistant neuropsychiatric disorders like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome (TS) and Major
Depression (MDD). Modulation of several targets within the
cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuits can lead to a decrease of symptom severity in those patients. This review focuses on the recent clinical outcomes in DBS in psychiatric disorders. Studies on OCD and TS are now focusing on the long-term effects of DBS, with encouraging results
regarding not only the decrease of symptoms, but also quality of life. They also highlighted efficient adjuvant techniques, like cognitive and
behavioural therapy and support programs, to enhance an often-partial response to DBS. The application of DBS for MDD is more recent and, despite encouraging initial open-label studies, two large randomised studies have failed to demonstrate an efficacy of DBS in MDD according to evidence-based medicine criteria. Last years, DBS was also tested in other resistant psychiatric disorders, as anorexia nervosa and addiction, with encouraging preliminary results. However, today, no target – whatever the disease – can meet the criteria for clinical efficacy as recently defined by an international committee for neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders.
Consequently, DBS in psychiatric disorders still needs to proceed within the frame of clinical trials.
Keywords
deep brain stimulation, obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depression, gilles de la Tourette syndrome, psychosurgery
1 1,2 1,3
1 2 3
Reviewer Status
Invited Reviewers
version 1 published 05 Jun 2018
1 2
, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Tipu Aziz
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK 1
, University Hospital of Jens Volkmann
Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany 2
05 Jun 2018, (F1000 Faculty Rev):699 (
First published: 7
) https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14187.1
05 Jun 2018, (F1000 Faculty Rev):699 (
Latest published: 7
) https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14187.1
v1
Anne-Hélène Clair ( ) Corresponding author: ah.clair@gmail.com
: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing; : Writing –
Author roles: Clair AH Haynes W
Review & Editing; Mallet L: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing interests:
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Grant information:
© 2018 Clair AH . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the , which
Copyright: et al Creative Commons Attribution Licence
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Clair AH, Haynes W and Mallet L.
How to cite this article: Recent advances in deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders [version 1;
F1000Research 2018, (F1000 Faculty Rev):699 ( )
peer review: 2 approved] 7 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14187.1
05 Jun 2018, (F1000 Faculty Rev):699 ( )
First published: 7 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14187.1
Introduction
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical technique based on the stereotactic implantation of quadripolar electrodes delivering high-frequency current in a specific subcortical or deep cortical structure. It is usually indicated to decrease symp- toms in neurological disorders, such as the hypodopaminergic symptom spectrum associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD).
The reversibility of DBS, supporting its ethically “acceptable”
status, combined with the improvement of psychiatric symptoms after lesional surgeries has certainly led to the transition towards its application in psychiatric disorders1. Patients with severe debilitating disease, resistant to medical and psychotherapeutic optimal treatment, were enrolled in studies modulating cortico- striato-thalamo-cortical circuits with DBS.
DBS was first used to improve obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)2 and Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (TS)3 symptoms in 1999. In both disorders, patients feel compelled to perform repetitive motor and vocal tics (in TS) or repetitive behaviour associated with intrusive ideas (compulsions and obsessions) (in OCD). Based on the efficacy of previous lesional surgeries1, the first targets were the anterior limb of internal capsule (ALIC)2 in OCD and the centromedian-parafascicular complex (CM-Pf) in TS3; 3 years later, an important decrease of comorbid OCD symptoms was reported in two parkinsonian patients stimulated in the subthalamic nucleus (STN)4. The same year, given the effects of globus pallidus internus (GPi) DBS on hyperkinesia in PD, a patient with TS was stimulated in the postero-ventral GPi and showed postoperative clinical improvement5. Then, based on pathophysiological evidence involving the subgenual cortex (BA 25, also termed Cg25) in major depressive disorder (MDD), the modulation of this structure with DBS was tested and led to an improvement of MDD symptoms6. Here, we will present the recent developments of DBS in psychiatry, including the clinical outcomes for OCD, TS, and MDD patients and other emerging psychiatric applications.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder
Randomised controlled studies have confirmed the initial reports by B. Nuttin2 and L. Mallet4 and highlighted two main targets for OCD: the striatal region (including the ALIC, the nucleus accumbens, the ventral caudate nucleus, and the ventral capsule/ventral striatum)7–9 and the STN10. Two recent meta-analysesfound that DBS leads to a global decrease of about 45% of OCD symptom severity with 60% of patients con- sidered responders11,12.
Recent studies are now focusing on the long-term effects of DBS, which represents a decisive step to consider a broader application of DBS for OCD. In agreement with the report from Greenberg et al. 3 years after DBS in the striatal region7, a stability of the initial decrease of OCD symptoms has been reported until 9 years after DBS13,14. Case reports that also suggest a stability of symptom decrease 6 months15 and 10 years after STN stimulation16,17 have been published.
In addition, one may wonder whether the evaluation of DBS effi- cacy is limited to the decrease of OCD symptoms (as measured
by the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, or Y-BOCS).
The recent focus on quality of life is related to a chronological (that is, after proving symptoms reduction), historical (that is, regarding the past misconducts in psychosurgery), and tran- snosographic (see Agid et al.18) legacy. Indeed, the team of D. Denys has chosen to follow its initial cohort9 by evaluating as a primary outcome the quality of life and subjective lived expe- rience of the patients stimulated in the striatal region13,19,20. After 3 to 5 years of DBS, patients reported a significant improve- ment in quality of life13. Curiously, it improved in responders and non-responders to DBS as defined by Y-BOCS fluctuations, thereby questioning the psychometric limits and the relevance of this primary outcome measure for severe populations. In addition to the previously known effects of striatal DBS (for example, mood and anxiety), patients of this cohort reported that they became
“more easy and loose”, “more self-confident”, and “expressive”
but also experienced “difficulties in their relationship with partner” after DBS19. Changes regarding the perception of themselves, their families, and other problems with social adjust- ments have been noticed in parkinsonian patients after clinical improvement by STN DBS21. Thus, the psychological and social changes experienced by patients with OCD could be unspecific and highlight the lack of control groups in the studies on DBS for OCD13,19. Currently, a European multicentre study is comparing the quality of life of severe OCD patients stimulated in the STN versus optimised conventional treatment17.
In the study by De Haan et al., we also noticed that patients reported an effect of DBS on the ability to engage in cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)19. Notwithstanding that almost all of the OCD patients included in DBS studies had initially failed to complete CBT, the cohort of D. Denys et al.9 experienced an additional decrease of OCD symptoms after post-operative CBT22. This interesting result places CBT as a potential strategy to enhance an often-partial response to striatal DBS in OCD and raises the interest in assessing this effect after STN stimulation.
Finally, the search for an optimal target in OCD is ongoing.
Although a recent meta-analysis failed to find a significant difference between the efficacy of DBS in the striatal region and STN12, a multicentre randomised trial is currently comparing the efficacy and safety of ventral capsule/ventral striatum versus STN DBS for OCD (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01329133).
Otherwise, a case study reported a decrease in OCD symptoms after DBS of the medial forebrain bundle (MFB)23, a promising target in MDD24.
Gilles de la Tourette syndrome
In the same way as OCD, the promising results reported in the two initial case studies3,5 were replicated, identifying two main targets for TS: the thalamus (including CM-Pf, dorsomedial nucleus, ventro-anterior and ventro-lateral) and the GPi (including the motor part [that is, postero-ventral] and associative-limbic part [that is, antero-medial]). For both targets, a recent meta-analysis also confirmed the efficacy of DBS with a median improve- ment of 52% in tic severity25. However, this encouraging result is based mostly on open-label studies. It included only three randomised controlled studies, which had contradictory results,
obtained from small samples, and most of them targeting the thalamus26–28. Thus, the efficacy of DBS for TS seems to be lacking evidence, especially in the GPi, a promising target with fewer side effects than the thalamus.
With the aim of providing evidence of the efficacy of GPi DBS on TS, two double-blind cross-over studies were recently con- ducted in larger samples29,30. Unfortunately, although the team of Kefalopoulou29 found a significant decrease of (only) 15% in tic severity during the double-blind phase, no significant difference was measured by Welter et al.30. However, for both, the improve- ment went up to 40% during the (open-label) follow-up period, and there were many inter-individual differences. This clearly highlights the difficulties in finding results in double-blind studies that are as encouraging as those in open-label ones. The placebo effect but also methodological issues (for example, duration of the blind period and limitation of the stimulation settings to preserve masking) and the chosen target (motor or associative-limbic part of the GPi) could explain this difference29,30. These limitations would probably be examined by the innovative database31 recently created to consider new guidelines for trials using DBS in TS. The aim of this database was also to share and gather clinical experiences with DBS in TS31, which offer a faster accumulation of evidence for DBS efficacy.
Recent studies are now interested in the long-term effects of DBS, as in OCD. Long-term side effects already reported after thalamic stimulation32 have even led some authors to propose a different target to their patients with TS33. Conversely, the long- term follow-up of TS patients stimulated in the GPi gave encour- aging results34,35, including an improvement in quality of life36. Unfortunately, as already reported in patients with OCD19,20 and PD21, patients have difficulties in coping with changes after DBS36. Consistently, the author stressed the importance of a multidisciplinary team and the need to approach patients about
“how life will continue with or without tics”36. This relevant consideration has already been successfully tested in PD patients with a perioperative psychoeducation program, leading to better social adaptation and a decrease of anxiety and depression37. Given the numerous psychiatric diseases often comorbid to TS, such a support program could be an interesting strategy to increase an often-partial response to DBS in TS.
Major depressive disorder
Although the literature on DBS for patients with MDD is rela- tively recent, numerous open-label studies have highlighted a decrease of depressive symptoms after DBS. Indeed, the results of the first trial stimulating Cg256 were confirmed by subsequent studies38–40. As is the case for OCD, DBS of the ventral striatal region leads to improvement of depressive symptoms in open-label studies41–43.
Recently, the efficacy of DBS in MDD was tested in two large double-blind randomised sponsored studies. Inclusions of patients in these studies began shortly after the initial publication by Mayberg et al.6, probably motivated by the influence of high- level studies on a wider application of DBS and the frequency
of MDD. Targeting the striatal region, a first study planned to include more than 200 MDD patients for DBS44. It was pre- maturely interrupted after including (only) 29 patients, as no significant difference was measured between the stimulated and non-stimulatedgroups. The same was observed for the largest DBS study in psychiatry, which failed to find significant differences after the stimulation of Cg25 among the 90 MDD patients included45. These disappointing results are counterbal- anced by the recent demonstration of significant improvement in MDD symptoms after ALIC DBS (with 40% of responders) in a third trial46. This last study is still the only randomised con- trolled trial to show a significant effect of DBS on depression.
Taken together, these recent results highlighted the safety of DBS in MDD. However, one cannot conclude whether DBS has an effect on depression. Trying to find the reasons for this
“failure” is a current debate within the DBS community. Some have pointed to the methodology of the randomised trials, specifically the way (for example, the delay and the algorithm used) to find the optimal stimulation parameters, and even the design of the study (for example, a cross-over versus parallel design and the duration between inclusion and blind period). Furthermore, the clinical characteristics of the patients with MDD are criticised, especially the duration of symptoms in some patients (up to 12 years) that could lead to a potential delayed effect of DBS45 or be a measured manifestation of a special clinical phenotype of non-responder patients. The fact that the results have not been very encouraging until now reasonably raises the question of whether or not to continue trials with this invasive procedure in psychiatric patients.
However, these negative results could be explained by a target issue. Indeed, a dramatic improvement of depressive symptoms was measured after DBS of the supero-lateral medial fore- brain bundle (slMFB) in open-label studies24,47. Now, one could wait for the results from a randomised study targeting this struc- ture in MDD48. They would be of particular interest to confirm, as 75% of patients are still responders 1 year after the start of DBS and have no serious side effects48.
Other psychiatric disorders
In recent years, several successful cases of DBS application to different neuropsychiatric disorders have been reported. As mentioned by the authors, those cases are in fact indicative of forthcoming open-label studies. If all of them succeed, we will know whether DBS of the slMFB decreases depressive symp- toms in bipolar patients49, whether the stimulation of baso-lateral amygdala improves resistant post-traumatic stress disorder50, and whether DBS of the striatal region is effective in heroin51 or cocaine52 addiction or even in schizophrenia53.
In patients with resistant anorexia nervosa (AN), encouraging first results were obtained on their body mass index (BMI) after the stimulation of Cg2554. Even if the first open-label study, includ- ing six AN patients stimulated in Cg25, led to disappointing results concerning the evolution of BMI55, a significant increase of BMI was then measured in a larger group (16 patients with AN) stimulated in the same target54. Additionally to an increase in
BMI, patients have experienced an improvement in mood and anxiety. As the same team have already used this target to decrease depressive symptoms in MDD6,38, one cannot exclude a positive bias of mood on the primary outcome measure (BMI).
Other open-label trials are ongoing to replicate these results and to test the efficacy of other targets (especially the striatal region) in AN (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT03168893 and NCT01924598).
Conclusions
Long-term effects of DBS are encouraging about both the absence of relapse and the improvement in quality of life in severe and resistant TS and OCD. On the other hand, recent years have been marked by disappointing results of randomised studies in DBS for TS and MDD.
This raises the question of DBS’ efficacy for psychiatric disor- ders, framed by a growing concern for ethics56,57. Key principles of medical ethics are discussed, such as the ability to make an autonomous decision (also suggesting giving informed consent) or authorize a research procedure58 or changes in personality following DBS20. A consensus document on ethical and scien- tific conduct for psychiatric surgery was recently published56. This document also mentioned that to make a conclusion regard- ing DBS’ efficiency (for a specific psychiatric population stimulated in a specific target), at least two studies managed by
two different teams are necessary56. Today, despite numerous randomised trials, no target in any psychiatric disease can meet these criteria.
This could be partially explained by heterogeneous clinical manifestations of psychiatric patients within a common diagno- sis. Indeed, the DBS of a defined target may modulate the symp- toms linked to a specific dysfunctional and partially overlapping neuronal circuit involved in psychiatric manifestations59.
Shared databases, as recently initiated for DBS in TS, are an encouraging way to promote scientific reflexion and hopefully improve clinical efficacy of DBS in TS and maybe in other psychiatric disorders. This could also contribute to the identi- fication of optimal targets for specific subgroups of patients, paving the way to precision medicine in psychiatry for severe and refractory mental disorders.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Grant information
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
References F1000 recommended
1. Hariz MI, Blomstedt P, Zrinzo L: Deep brain stimulation between 1947 and 1987:
the untold story. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 29(2): E1.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Nuttin B, Cosyns P, Demeulemeester H, et al.: Electrical stimulation in anterior limbs of internal capsules in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Lancet. 1999; 354(9189): 1526.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Vandewalle V, van der Linden C, Groenewegen HJ, et al.: Stereotactic treatment of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome by high frequency stimulation of thalamus.
Lancet. 1999; 353(9154): 724.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Mallet L, Mesnage V, Houeto JL, et al.: Compulsions, Parkinson’s disease, and stimulation. Lancet. 2002; 360(9342): 1302–4.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Van der Linden C, Colle H, Vandewalle V, et al.: Successful treatment of tics with bilateral internal pallidum (GPi) stimulation in a 27-year-old male patient with Gilles de la Tourette’s syndrome. Mov Disord. 2002; 17(Suppl 5): S341–S341.
6. Mayberg HS, Lozano AM, Voon V, et al.: Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Neuron. 2005; 45(5): 651–60.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 7. Greenberg BD, Malone DA, Friehs GM, et al.: Three-year outcomes in deep
brain stimulation for highly resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006; 31(11): 2384–93.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Goodman WK, Foote KD, Greenberg BD, et al.: Deep brain stimulation for intractable obsessive compulsive disorder: pilot study using a blinded, staggered-onset design. Biol Psychiatry. 2010; 67(6): 535–42.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 9. Denys D, Mantione M, Figee M, et al.: Deep brain stimulation of the nucleus
accumbens for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010; 67(10): 1061–8.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 10. Mallet L, Polosan M, Jaafari N, et al.: Subthalamic nucleus stimulation in
severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(20): 2121–34.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 11. Kisely S, Hall K, Siskind D, et al.: Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-
compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med.
2014; 44(16): 3533–42.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Alonso P, Cuadras D, Gabriëls L, et al.: Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive- Compulsive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcome and Predictors of Response. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7): e0133591.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Ooms P, Mantione M, Figee M, et al.: Deep brain stimulation for obsessive- compulsive disorders: long-term analysis of quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014; 85(2): 153–8.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Fayad SM, Guzick AG, Reid AM, et al.: Six-Nine Year Follow-Up of Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. PLoS One. 2016; 11(12):
e0167875.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 15. Chabardès S, Polosan M, Krack P, et al.: Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-
compulsive disorder: subthalamic nucleus target. World Neurosurg. 2013;
80(3–4): S31.e1–8.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Polosan M, Chabardes S, Bougerol T, et al.: Long-term improvement in obsessions and compulsions with subthalamic stimulation. Neurology. 2016;
87(17): 1843–4.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 17. Krack P, Polosan M, Chabardès S, et al.: Author response: Long-term
improvement in obsessions and compulsions with subthalamic stimulation.
Neurology. 2017; 88(17): 1684.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Agid Y, Schüpbach M, Gargiulo M, et al.: Neurosurgery in Parkinson’s disease:
the doctor is happy, the patient less so? J Neural Transm Suppl. 2006; (70):
409–14.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. de Haan S, Rietveld E, Stokhof M, et al.: Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation on the Lived Experience of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Patients: In-Depth Interviews with 18 Patients. PLoS One. 2015; 10(8): e0135524.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. de Haan S, Rietveld E, Stokhof M, et al.: Becoming more oneself? Changes in personality following DBS treatment for psychiatric disorders: Experiences of OCD patients and general considerations. PLoS One. 2017; 12(4): e0175748.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 21. Schüpbach M, Gargiulo M, Welter ML, et al.: Neurosurgery in Parkinson disease:
a distressed mind in a repaired body? Neurology. 2006; 66(12): 1811–6.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Mantione M, Nieman DH, Figee M, et al.: Cognitive-behavioural therapy augments the effects of deep brain stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychol Med. 2014; 44(16): 3515–22.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Coenen VA, Schlaepfer TE, Goll P, et al.: The medial forebrain bundle as a target for deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder. CNS Spectr. 2017; 22(3): 282–9.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
24. Schlaepfer TE, Bewernick BH, Kayser S, et al.: Rapid effects of deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;
73(12): 1204–12.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 25. Baldermann JC, Schüller T, Huys D, et al.: Deep Brain Stimulation for
Tourette-Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Brain Stimul.
2016; 9(2): 296–304.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 26. Maciunas RJ, Maddux BN, Riley DE, et al.: Prospective randomized double-
blind trial of bilateral thalamic deep brain stimulation in adults with Tourette syndrome. J Neurosurg. 2007; 107(5): 1004–14.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Welter ML, Mallet L, Houeto JL, et al.: Internal pallidal and thalamic stimulation in patients with Tourette syndrome. Arch Neurol. 2008; 65(7): 952–7.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 28. Ackermans L, Duits A, van der Linden C, et al.: Double-blind clinical trial of
thalamic stimulation in patients with Tourette syndrome. Brain. 2011; 134(Pt 3):
832–44.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Kefalopoulou Z, Zrinzo L, Jahanshahi M, et al.: Bilateral globus pallidus stimulation for severe Tourette’s syndrome: a double-blind, randomised crossover trial. Lancet Neurol. 2015; 14(6): 595–605.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 30. Welter ML, Houeto JL, Thobois S, et al.: Anterior pallidal deep brain
stimulation for Tourette’s syndrome: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2017; 16(8): 610–9.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 31. Deeb W, Rossi PJ, Porta M, et al.: The International Deep Brain Stimulation
Registry and Database for Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome: How Does It Work?
Front Neurosci. 2016; 10: 170.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Porta M, Servello D, Zanaboni C, et al.: Deep brain stimulation for treatment of refractory Tourette syndrome: long-term follow-up. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2012;
154(11): 2029–41.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Smeets AYJM, Duits AA, Leentjens AFG, et al.: Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Refractory Tourette Syndrome: Clinical Evidence for Increasing Disbalance of Therapeutic Effects and Side Effects at Long-Term Follow-Up.
Neuromodulation. 2018; 21(2): 197–202.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 34. Sachdev PS, Mohan A, Cannon E, et al.: Deep brain stimulation of the antero-
medial globus pallidus interna for Tourette syndrome. PLoS One. 2014; 9(8):
e104926.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
35. Smeets AYJM, Duits AA, Plantinga BR, et al.: Deep Brain Stimulation of the internal globus pallidus in refractory Tourette Syndrome. Clin Neurol Neurosurg.
2016; 142: 54–9.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
36. Dehning S, Leitner B, Schennach R, et al.: Functional outcome and quality of life in Tourette’s syndrome after deep brain stimulation of the posteroventrolateral globus pallidus internus: long-term follow-up. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2014;
15(1): 66–75.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Flores Alves Dos Santos J, Tezenas du Montcel S, Gargiulo M, et al.: Tackling psychosocial maladjustment in Parkinson’s disease patients following subthalamic deep-brain stimulation: A randomised clinical trial. PLoS One.
2017; 12(14): e0174512.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Lozano AM, Mayberg HS, Giacobbe P, et al.: Subcallosal cingulate gyrus deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;
64(6): 461–7.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 39. Kennedy SH, Giacobbe P, Rizvi SJ, et al.: Deep brain stimulation for
treatment-resistant depression: follow-up after 3 to 6 years. Am J Psychiatry.
2011; 168(5): 502–10.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 40. Holtzheimer PE, Kelley ME, Gross RE, et al.: Subcallosal cingulate deep
brain stimulation for treatment-resistant unipolar and bipolar depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012; 69(2): 150–8.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 41. Malone DA Jr, Dougherty DD, Rezai AR, et al.: Deep brain stimulation of
the ventral capsule/ventral striatum for treatment-resistant depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2009; 65(4): 267–75.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 42. Bewernick BH, Kayser S, Sturm V, et al.: Long-term effects of nucleus
accumbens deep brain stimulation in treatment-resistant depression:
evidence for sustained efficacy. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012; 37(9):
1975–85.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
43. Schlaepfer TE, Cohen MX, Frick C, et al.: Deep brain stimulation to reward circuitry alleviates anhedonia in refractory major depression.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008; 33(2): 368–77.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
44. Dougherty DD, Rezai AR, Carpenter LL, et al.: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of Deep Brain Stimulation of the Ventral Capsule/Ventral Striatum for Chronic Treatment-Resistant Depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2015; 78(4): 240–8.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Holtzheimer PE, Husain MM, Lisanby SH, et al.: Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a multisite, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017; 4(11): 839–49.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 46. Bergfeld IO, Mantione M, Hoogendoorn ML, et al.: Deep Brain Stimulation
of the Ventral Anterior Limb of the Internal Capsule for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016; 73(5): 456–64.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
47. Fenoy AJ, Schulz P, Selvaraj S, et al.: Deep brain stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle: Distinctive responses in resistant depression. J Affect Disord.
2016; 203: 143–51.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 48. Bewernick BH, Kayser S, Gippert SM, et al.: Deep brain stimulation to the
medial forebrain bundle for depression- long-term outcomes and a novel data analysis strategy. Brain Stimul. 2017; 10(3): 664–71.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 49. Gippert SM, Switala C, Bewernick BH, et al.: Deep brain stimulation for
bipolar disorder-review and outlook. CNS Spectr. 2017; 22(3): 254–7.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 50. Langevin J, Koek RJ, Schwartz HN, et al.: Deep Brain Stimulation of the
Basolateral Amygdala for Treatment-Refractory Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
Biol Psychiatry. 2016; 79(10): e82–e84.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
51. Kuhn J, Bührle CP, Lenartz D, et al.: Deep brain stimulation in addiction due to psychoactive substance use. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013; 116: 259–69.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
52. Gonçalves-Ferreira A, do Couto FS, Rainha Campos A, et al.: Deep Brain Stimulation for Refractory Cocaine Dependence. Biol Psychiatry. 2016; 79(11):
e87–9.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
53. Corripio I, Sarró S, McKenna PJ, et al.: Clinical Improvement in a Treatment- Resistant Patient With Schizophrenia Treated With Deep Brain Stimulation. Biol Psychiatry. 2016; 80(8): e69–70.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 54. Lipsman N, Lam E, Volpini M, et al.: Deep brain stimulation of the
subcallosal cingulate for treatment-refractory anorexia nervosa: 1 year follow- up of an open-label trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017; 4(4): 285–94.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 55. Lipsman N, Woodside DB, Giacobbe P, et al.: Subcallosal cingulate deep
brain stimulation for treatment-refractory anorexia nervosa: a phase 1 pilot trial. Lancet. 2013; 381(9875): 1361–70.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 56. Nuttin B, Wu H, Mayberg H, et al.: Consensus on guidelines for stereotactic
neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;
85(9): 1003–8.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
57. Schrock LE, Mink JW, Woods DW, et al.: Tourette syndrome deep brain stimulation: a review and updated recommendations. Mov Disord. 2015; 30(4):
448–71.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
58. Beeker T, Schlaepfer TE, Coenen VA: Autonomy in Depressive Patients Undergoing DBS-Treatment: Informed Consent, Freedom of Will and DBS’
Potential to Restore It. Front Integr Neurosci. 2017; 11: 11.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation 59. Berridge KC, Robinson TE, Aldridge JW: Dissecting components of reward:
‘liking’, ‘wanting’, and learning. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2009; 9(1): 65–73.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Open Peer Review
Current Peer Review Status:
Editorial Note on the Review Process
are commissioned from members of the prestigious and are edited as a
F1000 Faculty Reviews F1000 Faculty
service to readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, the reviewers provide input before publication and only the final, revised version is published. The reviewers who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations but without their reports on earlier versions (any comments will already have been addressed in the published version).
The reviewers who approved this article are:
Version 1
The benefits of publishing with F1000Research:
Your article is published within days, with no editorial bias
You can publish traditional articles, null/negative results, case reports, data notes and more The peer review process is transparent and collaborative
Your article is indexed in PubMed after passing peer review Dedicated customer support at every stage
For pre-submission enquiries, contact
research@f1000.comJens Volkmann
Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
Jens Volkmann is a consultant to Boston Scientific and Newronika and has received
Competing Interests:honoraria for speaking on behalf of Boston Scientific, Medtronic and St. Jude, all manufacturers of deep brain stimulation systems.
1
Tipu Aziz
Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests:
2
